HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

The All Purpose Lu Thread (MOD WARNING IN OP)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-16-2012, 09:12 PM
  #776
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,648
vCash: 500
Just to dispel some myths going on in this thread(s).

Why Mike Gillis HAS TO trade Roberto Luongo:
(this off-season or by latest trade deadline)

#1. He has asked to moved. Plain and simple. While he has politely given Gillis time and an opportunity to trade him by not forcing his hand and “demanding a trade”, it is a given the future is not long for Luongo and the Canucks. http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Can...588/story.html

#2. Mike Gillis can keep both Luongo and Schneider? According to CapGeek, Roberto Luongo has a NTC. He can supply a list of 5 teams he is willing to go to, HOWEVER, essentially he can have his say where he wants to go. It seems for now he’s willing to listen to a couple of interested teams, but he ultimately supplies a list of 5 teams of his choosing, putting him in control. For example; he can give 5 teams with realistically only 1 or 2 teams in need of his services or being capable of acquiring him. It’s a short list that puts Luongo in control. He must agree to where he goes. If things boil over between Gillis and Luongo (due to no trade or insufficient return), Luongo can simply tell the media or leak to the media that he “officially demands to be traded!” changing the dynamics and trade market significantly. Again, it’s only likely if Gillis refuses to trade Luongo but it’s a real possibility if things go sour. Look at Dany Heatley, Eric Lindros, Rick Nash, etc.. Refer to point #1. Luongo has far much more control than people suggest.
http://www.capgeek.com/canucks/

marty111 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 09:15 PM
  #777
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,648
vCash: 500
[continued]

#3. New CBA, future cap ceiling, and the Canuck’s cap management going forward. Posted by a different user but looking at the math, especially if the cap drops in one year to 60M, Vancouver will need to move salary in order to fill out their roster to continue competing for the cup. Luongo is the only real asset that they could use to clear cap space AND still get value for. Other players will likely need to be a cap dump + some value going to another team to absorb that cap hit. The new CBA will determine a lot but there is a possibility that cap dumps in the minors will still count against the cap - still to be determined. Either way it’s a 5-6 million dollar mistake on management or assets out the door to retain the cap to keep Luongo, still keeping in mind point #1 and #2. - nonsensical. It seems the strongest path is to move Luongo with everything considered and take some sort of value rather than the other options.

sedin (6.1) sedin (6.1) burrows (4.5)
booth (4.25) kesler (5.4) xxxxxx
kassian (0.87) xxxxxxx hansen (1.35)
xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

bieksa (4.6) hamhuis (4.6)
garrison (4.6) xxxxxxx
ballard (4.2) xxxxxxx

schneider (4)
luongo (5.3)

“with the above players signed it is a total of apx. $57.57M committed to the cap with gillis needing to sign 5 forwards and 2 defenseman. assuming that the cap hit is in fact $70 million it would give apx. $12.5 million to sign the remaining 7 players.” Even worse if within a season the cap is graded down to 60M and of course Edler is to be signed.

Common rebuttal:
Goaltending duo's:

Nashville 8.5 mil (Rinne/Mason)
Rangers 8.175 mil (Lundquist/Biron)
Boston 9.375 mil (Thomas/Rask/Khudobin)
New York Islanders 7.25 mil (Depietro/Nabokov)

However, Nashville’s tandem will be expired in one form or another within one season or if the lockout continues, the next regular season game. Ranger’s clock in at 8.175 in two years but appear to have cap room for future moves. Boston’s same as Nashville, and NYI within one year or not at all if Depietro is on the LTIR. Completely different situations, either via length of tandem or the movability of each player.

Again, the lockout and new CBA will determine a lot but it seems completely outside the realm of reason to think Gillis can keep both and he is most surely on a clock to make it happen, valuation aside. I don’t see any reason why anyone would think Gillis has the option to keep Lu around for as long as he wants if he doesn’t get what he wants OR that Gillis has complete control over his asset Luongo. The clock is ticking for Gillis. While there is the possibility that a team gets desperate, the odds are better that they won’t. The longer Gillis waits, the quicker Luongo’s value drops.

marty111 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 09:21 PM
  #778
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,222
vCash: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
Just to dispel some myths going on in this thread(s).

Why Mike Gillis HAS TO trade Roberto Luongo:
(this off-season or by latest trade deadline)

#1. He has asked to moved. Plain and simple. While he has politely given Gillis time and an opportunity to trade him by not forcing his hand and “demanding a trade”, it is a given the future is not long for Luongo and the Canucks. http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Can...588/story.html

#2. Mike Gillis can keep both Luongo and Schneider? According to CapGeek, Roberto Luongo has a NTC. He can supply a list of 5 teams he is willing to go to, HOWEVER, essentially he can have his say where he wants to go. It seems for now he’s willing to listen to a couple of interested teams, but he ultimately supplies a list of 5 teams of his choosing, putting him in control. For example; he can give 5 teams with realistically only 1 or 2 teams in need of his services or being capable of acquiring him. It’s a short list that puts Luongo in control. He must agree to where he goes. If things boil over between Gillis and Luongo (due to no trade or insufficient return), Luongo can simply tell the media or leak to the media that he “officially demands to be traded!” changing the dynamics and trade market significantly. Again, it’s only likely if Gillis refuses to trade Luongo but it’s a real possibility if things go sour. Look at Dany Heatley, Eric Lindros, Rick Nash, etc.. Refer to point #1. Luongo has far much more control than people suggest.
http://www.capgeek.com/canucks/
Your logic is a bit faulty. If he was desperate to be moved, he would expand his list to more teams that are interested. If he's not willing to do that, then obviously the situation in Vancouver would be acceptable to him.

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 09:25 PM
  #779
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,222
vCash: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
[continued]

#3. New CBA, future cap ceiling, and the Canuck’s cap management going forward. Posted by a different user but looking at the math, especially if the cap drops in one year to 60M, Vancouver will need to move salary in order to fill out their roster to continue competing for the cup. Luongo is the only real asset that they could use to clear cap space AND still get value for. Other players will likely need to be a cap dump + some value going to another team to absorb that cap hit. The new CBA will determine a lot but there is a possibility that cap dumps in the minors will still count against the cap - still to be determined. Either way it’s a 5-6 million dollar mistake on management or assets out the door to retain the cap to keep Luongo, still keeping in mind point #1 and #2. - nonsensical. It seems the strongest path is to move Luongo with everything considered and take some sort of value rather than the other options.

sedin (6.1) sedin (6.1) burrows (4.5)
booth (4.25) kesler (5.4) xxxxxx
kassian (0.87) xxxxxxx hansen (1.35)
xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

bieksa (4.6) hamhuis (4.6)
garrison (4.6) xxxxxxx
ballard (4.2) xxxxxxx

schneider (4)
luongo (5.3)

“with the above players signed it is a total of apx. $57.57M committed to the cap with gillis needing to sign 5 forwards and 2 defenseman. assuming that the cap hit is in fact $70 million it would give apx. $12.5 million to sign the remaining 7 players.” Even worse if within a season the cap is graded down to 60M and of course Edler is to be signed.

Common rebuttal:
Goaltending duo's:

Nashville 8.5 mil (Rinne/Mason)
Rangers 8.175 mil (Lundquist/Biron)
Boston 9.375 mil (Thomas/Rask/Khudobin)
New York Islanders 7.25 mil (Depietro/Nabokov)

However, Nashville’s tandem will be expired in one form or another within one season or if the lockout continues, the next regular season game. Ranger’s clock in at 8.175 in two years but appear to have cap room for future moves. Boston’s same as Nashville, and NYI within one year or not at all if Depietro is on the LTIR. Completely different situations, either via length of tandem or the movability of each player.

Again, the lockout and new CBA will determine a lot but it seems completely outside the realm of reason to think Gillis can keep both and he is most surely on a clock to make it happen, valuation aside. I don’t see any reason why anyone would think Gillis has the option to keep Lu around for as long as he wants if he doesn’t get what he wants OR that Gillis has complete control over his asset Luongo. The clock is ticking for Gillis. While there is the possibility that a team gets desperate, the odds are better that they won’t. The longer Gillis waits, the quicker Luongo’s value drops.
Kesler's cap hit is only 5 mil and Hamhuis' is only 4.5. It's likely the rest of the holes in our lineup are filled with prospects like Schroeder or Jensen on ELCs. Also, Ballard would be on the block well before Luongo or Schneider if the cap goes down.

Luongo or Schneider will eventually be traded, but there's nothing stopping us from not taking the first offer someone gives us. Something centred around Lupul/Hemsky + conditional 1st would be okay by me.

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 09:33 PM
  #780
ginner classic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kitsilano
Posts: 6,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
[continued]

#3. New CBA, future cap ceiling, and the Canuck’s cap management going forward. Posted by a different user but looking at the math, especially if the cap drops in one year to 60M, Vancouver will need to move salary in order to fill out their roster to continue competing for the cup. Luongo is the only real asset that they could use to clear cap space AND still get value for. Other players will likely need to be a cap dump + some value going to another team to absorb that cap hit. The new CBA will determine a lot but there is a possibility that cap dumps in the minors will still count against the cap - still to be determined. Either way it’s a 5-6 million dollar mistake on management or assets out the door to retain the cap to keep Luongo, still keeping in mind point #1 and #2. - nonsensical. It seems the strongest path is to move Luongo with everything considered and take some sort of value rather than the other options.

sedin (6.1) sedin (6.1) burrows (4.5)
booth (4.25) kesler (5.4) xxxxxx
kassian (0.87) xxxxxxx hansen (1.35)
xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

bieksa (4.6) hamhuis (4.6)
garrison (4.6) xxxxxxx
ballard (4.2) xxxxxxx

schneider (4)
luongo (5.3)

“with the above players signed it is a total of apx. $57.57M committed to the cap with gillis needing to sign 5 forwards and 2 defenseman. assuming that the cap hit is in fact $70 million it would give apx. $12.5 million to sign the remaining 7 players.” Even worse if within a season the cap is graded down to 60M and of course Edler is to be signed.

Common rebuttal:
Goaltending duo's:

Nashville 8.5 mil (Rinne/Mason)
Rangers 8.175 mil (Lundquist/Biron)
Boston 9.375 mil (Thomas/Rask/Khudobin)
New York Islanders 7.25 mil (Depietro/Nabokov)

However, Nashville’s tandem will be expired in one form or another within one season or if the lockout continues, the next regular season game. Ranger’s clock in at 8.175 in two years but appear to have cap room for future moves. Boston’s same as Nashville, and NYI within one year or not at all if Depietro is on the LTIR. Completely different situations, either via length of tandem or the movability of each player.

Again, the lockout and new CBA will determine a lot but it seems completely outside the realm of reason to think Gillis can keep both and he is most surely on a clock to make it happen, valuation aside. I don’t see any reason why anyone would think Gillis has the option to keep Lu around for as long as he wants if he doesn’t get what he wants OR that Gillis has complete control over his asset Luongo. The clock is ticking for Gillis. While there is the possibility that a team gets desperate, the odds are better that they won’t. The longer Gillis waits, the quicker Luongo’s value drops.
I appreciate the hard work you put into your post but Luongo is under contract with Vancouver and cannot force a trade. End of story. The rest is window dressing. We are fine against the current cap.

Nuff said.

ginner classic is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 09:38 PM
  #781
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginner classic View Post
I appreciate the hard work you put into your post but Luongo is under contract with Vancouver and cannot force a trade. End of story. The rest is window dressing. We are fine against the current cap.

Nuff said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Your logic is a bit faulty. If he was desperate to be moved, he would expand his list to more teams that are interested. If he's not willing to do that, then obviously the situation in Vancouver would be acceptable to him.
Any high profile athletes can force trade, it happens all the time. I provided examples as well. That's not a disputable point. I posted all of these points to add the the discussion as well, not for them to be shot down with little to no explanation.

Vancouver's cap situation [even if off by a 1m or so] is most definitely a problem within a year if improvement is going to be made. The number's explain that and the reason's behind it.

Remember, I'm saying within a season's time. Take these points and use them to discuss a potential trade.

If they are off based, provide something of substance to counter them.

Discuss.

marty111 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 09:43 PM
  #782
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
Any high profile athlete can force trade, it happens all the time. I provided examples as well. That's not a disputable point.

I posted all of these points to add the the discussion as well, not for them to be shot down with little to no explanation.

Vancouver's cap situation [even if off by a 1m or so] is most definitely a problem within a year. The number's explain that and the reason's behind it.

Remember, I'm saying within a season's time. Take these points and use them to discuss a potential trade.

If they are off based, provide something of substance to counter them.

Discuss.
you are new....everything you wrote has been written at least 100 times since late april.

you have provided nothing new on the topic and suggesting your own points are indisputable are not going to help.

Vancouver can negotiate with ANY team in the league, when something is offered that is suitable to Gillis that is when the deal gets brought to Luongo. It will not come up in negotiations, and will not `lower` his value.

You want him pony up, if not Canucks will roll with two studs in the crease.

arsmaster is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 09:47 PM
  #783
Liferleafer
RIP Pat
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
you are new....everything you wrote has been written at least 100 times since late april.

you have provided nothing new on the topic and suggesting your own points are indisputable are not going to help.

Vancouver can negotiate with ANY team in the league, when something is offered that is suitable to Gillis that is when the deal gets brought to Luongo. It will not come up in negotiations, and will not `lower` his value.

You want him pony up, if not Canucks will roll with two studs in the crease.
Was going to post something ground breaking...but that "two studs in the crease" line got me off track.:-)

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 10:11 PM
  #784
ginner classic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kitsilano
Posts: 6,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
Any high profile athletes can force trade, it happens all the time. I provided examples as well. That's not a disputable point. I posted all of these points to add the the discussion as well, not for them to be shot down with little to no explanation.

Vancouver's cap situation [even if off by a 1m or so] is most definitely a problem within a year if improvement is going to be made. The number's explain that and the reason's behind it.

Remember, I'm saying within a season's time. Take these points and use them to discuss a potential trade.

If they are off based, provide something of substance to counter them.

Discuss.
You are flat wrong. He is under a lgal obligation to fulfill his contract or retire. That is not debatable.

ginner classic is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 10:14 PM
  #785
Intense Rage
Registered User
 
Intense Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
No, I'd rather discuss things based completely on fan bias. Fabrications without _any_ insider knowledge. Yes, that seems much more prudent. Much more logical. Clearly the reporters out there have nothing on your inside sources IR...
Speaking of bias, the rumor in question originated from Vancouver. Yes I am sure there is no bias there whatsoever. Who am I to question the validity of the The Province, I am sure they are completely free from bias.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
You can believe whatever you want. Nobody is saying otherwise. By that same token, other people can believe what they want, and if they want to put more stock in the reports made by legit sources, instead of IR's insider opinion, they can do so. The only difference is that this latter group is using a secondary source to form their viewpoint, while you continue to use your own bias. Can you blame them for not buying into your insider knowledge?
You can choose to believe your "secondary source", I don't recall ever stopping you from doing so. Also I lold @ "legit". Why is The Province a "legit" source? What is their track record to be labeled as a "legit" source?

Also when have I ever claimed to have any insider knowledge? Its frankly amusing that you had to add your own spin to my posts to prop up your argument.

Intense Rage is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 10:36 PM
  #786
racerjoe
Registered User
 
racerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
Any high profile athletes can force trade, it happens all the time. I provided examples as well. That's not a disputable point. I posted all of these points to add the the discussion as well, not for them to be shot down with little to no explanation.

Vancouver's cap situation [even if off by a 1m or so] is most definitely a problem within a year if improvement is going to be made. The number's explain that and the reason's behind it.

Remember, I'm saying within a season's time. Take these points and use them to discuss a potential trade.

If they are off based, provide something of substance to counter them.

Discuss.
Regarding the cap I would like to politely point out Vancouver is the only team to have actually been legally over the cap for 3 plus years.

racerjoe is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 10:40 PM
  #787
racerjoe
Registered User
 
racerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
Just trying to dispel some myths in this thread(s).

Reasons WHY Brian Burke is NOT under pressure to trade for Roberto Luongo, while we all know he is interested. (just because most conversation is about Leafs acquiring Luongo).

#1. Kessel, Phaneuf, & Lupul will walk for nothing if team keeps missing the postseason. What is important to remember is that all these players will be approached about extensions a year prior to or during the season and if they do not want to resign then all can be moved for significant assets (decide for yourself). Lupul can be traded without restriction. Phaneuf can be traded without restriction, although being team captain his movement is least likely. Kessel can be moved but his limitation is unknown. However, if the new CBA changes RFA status up one more year, Kessel will not be a UFA, rather and RFA and cannot walk. Either way, the likelihood of them walking and leaving the Leafs in a whole is extremely low and close to impossible.

#2. Goalie Market and future UFA’s. If this season is played as a shortened season, then it is possible that there are other goalies on the market to tandem with Reimer. It is hard to know but a package could be made and not set the Leafs back. It may be more of a risk but Brian Burke is known for taking risks. If the lockout goes all season, then the following goalies will potentially be UFA’s for Burke to target: Niklas Backstrom, Tim Thomas, Nikolai Khabibulin, Evgeni Nabokov, Jimmy Howard, Mike Smith, Jose Theodore, Ray Emery, etc.

#3. Burke Needs Luongo to save his job. Speculative at best. Refer to reasons #1 and #2. It's up to Luongo if he wants to come to Toronto, perhaps Florida. Really the decision is not in Brian's hand to make. All he can do is make the best offer he is comfortable with, and Gillis will judge based on ultimately what few offers he gets outlined by Luongo's contractual limitation (5 team trade list.)
I would also like to add #1 and #3 are probably very related, if #1 happens and all three guys leave, probably even if traded, #3 happens and it probably won't be Burkes job anymore to help.

Keep in mind I am not Burke hater, just the facts, it is rare a GM can have 5 loosing seasons in a row, and then lose his building blocks, and still have a job.

racerjoe is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 11:51 PM
  #788
BlueBaron
Registered User
 
BlueBaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Toronto, On
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,508
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginner classic View Post
You are flat wrong. He is under a lgal obligation to fulfill his contract or retire. That is not debatable.
Name one NHL player in the last decade who has asked to be traded who wasn't and you may have a point, The problem is exactly 0 have been held against their will. Do you just think the other GM's arent as smart as yours or do you think maybe there is a reason for it that some Canuck fans just choose to ignore ?

BlueBaron is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 12:00 AM
  #789
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,222
vCash: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueBaron View Post
Name one NHL player in the last decade who has asked to be traded who wasn't and you may have a point, The problem is exactly 0 have been held against their will. Do you just think the other GM's arent as smart as yours or do you think maybe there is a reason for it that some Canuck fans just choose to ignore ?
Bobby Ryan allegedly asked for a trade before reconsidering. Luongo never "demanded" to be traded. Besides the fact that we could simply trade Schneider if the offers for Luongo are awful. But I doubt it gets that far anyways. I think Luongo will be traded shortly after the CBA comes through. This whole "We'll just keep him" attitude my most Canucks fans is simply a response to lowball offers. Realistically I think that there are some solid offers put out there by GMs, as the only rumours that have surfaced have all had some solid value.(ex Bolland+; Schenn; Kulemin+Komisarek+1st)

Whether you trust the validity of these rumours or not, the absence of any rumoured deals that treat Luongo as a cap dump doesn't help the case for people who see Luongo as having marginal value.

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
11-17-2012, 12:06 AM
  #790
mstad101
Registered User
 
mstad101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,247
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueBaron View Post
Name one NHL player in the last decade who has asked to be traded who wasn't and you may have a point, The problem is exactly 0 have been held against their will. Do you just think the other GM's arent as smart as yours or do you think maybe there is a reason for it that some Canuck fans just choose to ignore ?
Well really Luongo is in the losing position if he were to force the hand of the Canucks management like so.
We say expand your team, he says no, ok well you have a few options Roberto, retire and not receive any money, go on waivers and we'll see you in Colombus, or not report and he suspended and again not get paid that 6.7 million.

So in what situation do you see Luongo coming out ahead othe than being willing to work with Gillis to find the best solution for all parties involved?

Don't you think Gillis an ex player agent would know this as well? And discussed such options with Luongo's agent to make sure each party acts accordingly, including the management team. Each party here has respect for each other and has been nothing but patient. I expect Gillis to continue this trend and move a tender when a deal is right.

mstad101 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 12:07 AM
  #791
King In The North
Sean Bennett
 
King In The North's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hamilton, On
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,985
vCash: 500
I'm sure not every trade demand is made public....

King In The North is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 12:36 AM
  #792
Ricky Bobby
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,844
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstad101 View Post
Well really Luongo is in the losing position if he were to force the hand of the Canucks management like so.
We say expand your team, he says no, ok well you have a few options Roberto, retire and not receive any money, go on waivers and we'll see you in Colombus, or not report and he suspended and again not get paid that 6.7 million. So in what situation do you see Luongo coming out ahead othe than being willing to work with Gillis to find the best solution for all parties involved?

Don't you think Gillis an ex player agent would know this as well? And discussed such options with Luongo's agent to make sure each party acts accordingly, including the management team. Each party here has respect for each other and has been nothing but patient. I expect Gillis to continue this trend and move a tender when a deal is right.
You make it sound so simple.

Ottawa went through a somewhat similar situation with Heatley who reported to camp and eventually got what he wanted.

Luongo has a NTC clause that must be honoured, he will report to camp (just like Heatley did), putting him on waivers means the Nucks get nothing (you can't honestly think Gillis would put Luongo on waivers where he gets absolutely zero assets in return.)


Last edited by Ricky Bobby: 11-17-2012 at 01:34 AM.
Ricky Bobby is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:27 AM
  #793
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstad101 View Post
We say expand your team, he says no, ok well you have a few options Roberto, retire and not receive any money, go on waivers and we'll see you in Colombus, or not report and he suspended and again not get paid that 6.7 million.
Would never happen to a high profile athlete. The other side of the coin is Lu sits and eats up 5.3m a year, plays poorly or at the very least half heatedly, and is an issue in the locker room. That's the problem, you can't just tell a superstar "deal with it or go home" when they have such influence over the team in various ways.

Now I'm not saying any of this is going to happen and these extremes of an argument of kind of silly, but it's true... the opportunity to trade Luongo [who will be traded] is on a timeline. Lu has a lot of power in this scenario for the reasons listed above.

It's in Gillis's best interest to do a deal soon while he still has some control.

marty111 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:28 AM
  #794
ginner classic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kitsilano
Posts: 6,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueBaron View Post
Name one NHL player in the last decade who has asked to be traded who wasn't and you may have a point, The problem is exactly 0 have been held against their will. Do you just think the other GM's arent as smart as yours or do you think maybe there is a reason for it that some Canuck fans just choose to ignore ?
don't need to do anything of the sort. He's under contract. end of.

ginner classic is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:34 AM
  #795
mstad101
Registered User
 
mstad101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,247
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky Bobby View Post
You make it sound so simple.

Ottawa went through a somewhat similar situation with Heatley who reported to camp and eventually got what he wanted.

Luongo has a NTC clause that must be honoured, he will report to camp (just like Heatley did), putting him on waivers means the Nucks get nothing (you can't honestly think Gillis would put Luongo where he gets absolutely zero assets in return.)
Considering that you are laying out every extreme there is I was only doing the same.
Do you honestly believe Gillis to sell Luongo at a discount?

Comeon if Luongo was Heatley, don't you think Gillis would have moved him before the CBA expired? Removing a problem like that would have been a better idea under the old CBA.
Luongo has been a true professional throughout this and has gone on record to working with Gillis and management very well.

There is no outside reason for Lu to want out, only since we have a younger cheaper and just as quality option is Lu even being discussed in trade. There was no public demand and there has been no bad blood between the tenders, both have expressed the utmost respect for one another. So please, explain how and outside perspective would know the two tenders many Canucks fans have been watching since 04 when Schneids was drafted and 06 when Luongo was acquired? I'd like to see who can tell me more about these guys that aren't their player agents, family or life long friends?

mstad101 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:37 AM
  #796
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intense Rage View Post
Speaking of bias, the rumor in question originated from Vancouver. Yes I am sure there is no bias there whatsoever. Who am I to question the validity of the The Province, I am sure they are completely free from bias.


Curious, what bias could you think Botchford would have in this situation?


And I find it especially hilarious that even if it was inferred that Botchford _and_ Lalji had bias, that you would equate it to your own bias. This I find laughable. You are a poster on HFboards. These guys make a living in their profession. They rate, while you don't.



Quote:
You can choose to believe your "secondary source", I don't recall ever stopping you from doing so. Also I lold @ "legit". Why is The Province a "legit" source? What is their track record to be labeled as a "legit" source?

Also when have I ever claimed to have any insider knowledge? Its frankly amusing that you had to add your own spin to my posts to prop up your argument.


Ahh so now we are questioning the province now? The same paper that has Willis and Gallagher type vet reporters that have covered the Canucks for decades. (Gallagher called the Hodgson situation by the way)Brilliant tact there IR, you've certainly got a handle on reality here.



You have implied insider knowledge by stating that Bolland was never offered as a matter of fact. How could you do that if you don't have insider knowledge to Bowman? Are you losing track of what you are saying? That isn't spin, that's pretending like your opinion counts for anything in the face of legit sources saying otherwise.



You say you aren't stopping people from believing the rumours, yet when you post as an insider, attempt to curb the conversation away from these sources because _you_ don't give them credence, you are in fact taking an active opposition to this information. How is this _not_ stopping people from believing it?

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 02:15 AM
  #797
ginner classic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kitsilano
Posts: 6,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstad101 View Post
Considering that you are laying out every extreme there is I was only doing the same.
Do you honestly believe Gillis to sell Luongo at a discount?

Comeon if Luongo was Heatley, don't you think Gillis would have moved him before the CBA expired? Removing a problem like that would have been a better idea under the old CBA.
Luongo has been a true professional throughout this and has gone on record to working with Gillis and management very well.

There is no outside reason for Lu to want out, only since we have a younger cheaper and just as quality option is Lu even being discussed in trade. There was no public demand and there has been no bad blood between the tenders, both have expressed the utmost respect for one another. So please, explain how and outside perspective would know the two tenders many Canucks fans have been watching since 04 when Schneids was drafted and 06 when Luongo was acquired? I'd like to see who can tell me more about these guys that aren't their player agents, family or life long friends?
Amazing eh?

Who has more to lose on a stand-off on a (non existent) trade demand?

6+ million per year on Luongo's side.....or the evidently inevitable services of Lombardi, Colborne and some third rate D prospect for the Canucks?

I think an immediate trade demand would be met with an invitation for Lou to spend some quality time with his family in sunny Florida. And I think we'd be just fine. No better and no worse on the ice than if we moved him for the crap suggested by many people.

ginner classic is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 04:14 AM
  #798
Intense Rage
Registered User
 
Intense Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Ahh so now we are questioning the province now? The same paper that has Willis and Gallagher type vet reporters that have covered the Canucks for decades. (Gallagher called the Hodgson situation by the way)Brilliant tact there IR, you've certainly got a handle on reality here.
Yes I don't give credence to any local newspaper claiming they have an insider scoop on proposals. Especially when someone on the other side says there was nothing significant in the works between the two teams and a straight up swap makes zero sense for the Hawks.
http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/blac...o-not-a-chance

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
You have implied insider knowledge by stating that Bolland was never offered as a matter of fact. How could you do that if you don't have insider knowledge to Bowman? Are you losing track of what you are saying? That isn't spin, that's pretending like your opinion counts for anything in the face of legit sources saying otherwise.
I admit it was my mistake for not clarifying. I should have said that "Bolland was likely never offered". And that is what I meant in the first place. If you see my original post on the subject, I was calling out a Canucks fan who stated that Bolland was offered as a fact. I did not mean to make the same mistake I was calling him out for. In which case I understand the misunderstanding.

Intense Rage is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 05:08 AM
  #799
racerjoe
Registered User
 
racerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueBaron View Post
Name one NHL player in the last decade who has asked to be traded who wasn't and you may have a point, The problem is exactly 0 have been held against their will. Do you just think the other GM's arent as smart as yours or do you think maybe there is a reason for it that some Canuck fans just choose to ignore ?
From my understanding, from a TSN insider, I believe Dregs, and Ray ferraro it actually happens fairly often. Ray pretty much laid it out, you have a contract, your options are limited. Also Heatly is a bad example as I believe he had a NMC, so he could dictate a lot more with less consequences. Really Ottawa could only trade him to the team he wanted or suspend him. The Canucks can ask for the five teams, or waive, suspend, put him in the minors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
Would never happen to a high profile athlete. The other side of the coin is Lu sits and eats up 5.3m a year, plays poorly or at the very least half heatedly, and is an issue in the locker room. That's the problem, you can't just tell a superstar "deal with it or go home" when they have such influence over the team in various ways.

Now I'm not saying any of this is going to happen and these extremes of an argument of kind of silly, but it's true... the opportunity to trade Luongo [who will be traded] is on a timeline. Lu has a lot of power in this scenario for the reasons listed above.

It's in Gillis's best interest to do a deal soon while he still has some control.
So let me get this straight, we can't guess for the best, despite what has happened with our own player so far, and what he has said, but you can make leaps and bounds based on what hopes and dreams?

I think Lui will be traded, and I think it will happen pretty quick once the NHL starts back up again, unless we lose a couple of seasons or something drastic, but realistically the Canucks could keep lui for a few years, with Shnieds. Also not saying that would be in our best interest, just stating that it is more than possible, even with a cap shrinking 10 mill.

racerjoe is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 07:21 AM
  #800
hockeywoot
Registered User
 
hockeywoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: China
Posts: 1,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by skywarp75 View Post
I completely believe this. The canuck D is pretty poor defensively (other than Hamhuis), especially at clearing rebounds. It always irks me when people claim Luongo has it easy due to the quality of the team, instead of realizing that Luongo is the main factor in that 'team'.

And just because Cory Schneider looks ready to be one of the best in the world doesnt mean that Luongo is washed up. There was a 20 game stretch last year where he (and cory) literally stole every game, the team played like crap, barely squeeked into OT, and pulled out win after win. Flat unsipired hockey completely saved by all-world goaltending, every night.

If Luongo can keep winning 30 games a year for a few more years, he'll end up SECOND in all time NHL wins for a goalie. 3rd is about the worst he can do, and thats if he turns to garbage soon, but as a dedicated athlete and professional with a drive to win and immense pride, thats not going to happen. His character is one of his best assets.
This.

Our defence outside of Hamhuis, is kinda inept at defending.

hockeywoot is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:24 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.